9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80 and the consequent urgency of the matter, as soon as the hearing of arguments in the case were completed, we announced the conclusion reached by us by passing the following order: After hearing counsel, appearing on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the order of detention impugned in this Writ Petition does not call for any interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Detailed reason will follow. We now proceed to state the reasons that weighed with us in reaching the aforesaid conclusion. By an order dated November 6, 1982, passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3, sub-section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980-hereinafter called the Act- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e received by the State Government on the 6th December, 1982. On 9th December, 1982, the State Government considered the petitioner's representation and rejected the same. Simultaneously, on the same day, the State Government forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board. On 10.12.1982, the Advisory Board met to consider the case of the petitioner, gave a personal hearing to the petitioner and drew up its report holding that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on 12th December, 1982, and on 21st December, 1982, the State Government confirmed the detention order under section 12 of the Act. The petitioner was informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the detaining authority in forwarding the petitioner's representation to the State Government. The petitioner had addressed his representation not to the State Government as contemplated by section 8 of the Act, but to the District Magistrate, Moradabad. It was received by the District Magistrate on the 24th of November and promptly, on the same day, the District Magistrate forwarded it to Senior Superintendent of Police for the latter's comments. The comments of the Senior Superintendent of Police were received in the office of the District Magistrate on the 27th November but it was only on the 3rd December that the District Magistrate forwarded his report to the State Government enclosing the petitioner's representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondents that the petitioner's representation has been dealt with by the District Magistrate with all the promptness that was reasonably possible under the circumstances then obtaining in Moradabad city and the surrounding areas and that the charge of inordinate delay levelled by the petitioner is baseless. In this context we consider it necessary to emphasise that the question whether the representation submitted by a detenu has been dealt with all reasonable promptness and deligence is to be decided not by the application of any rigid or inflexible rule or set formula nor by a mere arithmetical counting of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of each case; if on such examination, it is found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vember itself. The representation received from the petitioner was forwarded by the State Government to the State Advisory Board on 9th December, 1982. The Advisory Board held its meeting on 10th December, 1982 and, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, made its report finding sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that section 10 mandatorily enjoins the State Government to take steps to see that the case of the detenu is considered by the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. We are unable to see any merit in this contention. Section 10 reads. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent body consisting of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of a High Court. It is entirely for the Advisory Board to regulate its schedule of holding meetings and conducting its business in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 11 of the Act which has specified a time limit or seven weeks from the date of detention for the submission of the Board's report to the appropriate Government. It is, therefore, wholly wrong to interpret the words place before as meaning anything more than forward to or submit before the Advisory Board the relevant papers relating to the detention of the detenu. In the present case, the Advisory Board has disposed of the petitioner's case well within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
